Science and Armchair Skepticism, an Autism Story

A topic tends to come up from time to time that really gets under my skin. The reason it gets under my skin is that it is based on a complete misunderstanding and ignorance (not to mention an unwillingness to learn) of the way science arrives at an understanding of how things work. It also happens to be a subject that is very personal to me and my family. That topic is the alleged link between immunizations and Autism Spectrum Disorders.

It is largely based on a misunderstanding of science, so a little mention of science is warranted. The bedrock of scientific research is research. Research is based on the old model of hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and observation that I hope we all remember from school. With that beginning, researchers perform experiments and/or make observations to attempt to quantitatively support or refute that hypothesis. The procedures and observations are compiled in a reporting with enough detail so others could similarly perform the same experiments. This report is then submitted to a journal where it is reviewed by peers who will make a determination on whether or not proper and appropriate procedures were followed. It is a quality check to see if the study might be missing something that might be overlooked. When it passes muster, it is published in the journal. Other scientists can then read the study and attempt to replicate. When multiple studies are done with similar results, it is reasonable to assume the hypothesis is pretty solid. A fairly prominent example of an initial study that said one thing with no subsequent reinforcement from other studies is the Cold Fusion story from the late 1980's.

Fast forward a bit and there is fair bit of discussion about the seeming rise in Autism diagnoses. In some cases of children with Autism, the child has little chance of functioning normally in society. Parents of these children understandably want answers. With so little known about the root causes of Autism, there isn't a lot that can be said to offer comfort, solace, or just understanding. If there was some concretely understood cause, there might be some individual or group that should be held accountable. In a culture so enamored with litigation, the desire for a scapegoat is tempting, even desirable. Enter: Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield is a doctor who authored a study that linked immunizations with Autism. Everyone now had their scapegoat. All is right in the world, or at least now we know who to sue. The problem is the research was sketchy at best and to date has not been replicated by other researchers.

Fast forward to today. While looking through entries on a social media site, I see a link to a story about another researcher. The friend, who previously posted links more or less defending Wakefield, essentially posted something expressing doubt that media coverage would cast suspicion on the findings of the study. That kind of got under my skin.

For starters, there is no mention in the story of fraud in the research or the findings of the research. The fraud was in invoices. Essentially the guy was skimming the till by filing bogus expense reports. The guy could have been doing flawless research, but just inflating his costs so he could get a little extra scratch. There is a Himalayanly huge difference between what is represented as bad procedures, medical malpractice, and falsifying data (as well as being in bed with companies who could profit handsomely from the bogus study) and a guy who screws over the source of his funding for some fictitious expenses.

A second problem I had was with the reporting of the research. The story mentions how he takes over as the lead researcher. That is a little misleading, even if factually correct. The published findings lists the fraudster 4th. If indeed he was the lead researcher, he is unrealistically humble. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the author of the story is betraying bias, maybe hoping the findings will now be discredited.

Finally I take issue with the simple fact that scientific research is not an archipelago of lone, unique studies. Immunization caused Autism is based solely on the findings of Andrew Wakefield. There has not been a corroborating study since. The research that some are hoping is now summarily dismissed with this story of fraud is not dependent on this one study. The American Academy of Pediatrics has posted a nice pdf outlining the results of a whole boat load of studies on the immunization/Autism link. While one researcher on one study was filing bogus expense reports, the research appears reasonable because of the volume of research. For this one researcher's fraud to invalidate all other findings, a vast multinational conspiracy would have to exist. Meanwhile armchair skeptics are still sold on the ideas backed by a guy with bad research and plausible collusion.

Time will tell if the story goes anywhere. I know where I hope it goes.

A Few of My (Least) Favorite Things

Once again, April 1st is upon us. Maybe it is my inner Ebenezer Scrooge, maybe it is the curmudgeon in me, but I can't stand overt stupidity masquerading as humor. I'm used to the practice of not taking people, and especially websites, too seriously on this most wonderful day. Some of the pranking is actually amusing (this one comes to mind). A whole lot of it isn't.

One site I have a love/hate relationship with is boardgamegeek.com. I love it because it is a really nice resource for looking up and hearing about board games. I hate it because of a fairly significant element in the site's community. There is a smug, almost condescending attitude there among many of the BGG users. There is a passive aggressive defense of the group-think that persists. The admins can do no wrong, even when they do wrong. Any mention of dissatisfaction is almost immediately met with a defense of the site. There are many positive, redeeming aspects of the community, but there is a lot of trash in there. The trash tends to be very vocal, and as long as their vitriol is adequately packaged in veiled, passive aggressive, indirect language it is given a pass. Say the same thing in a direct manner, and you will receive a temporary banning (of escalating severity with repeat "offenses".

Boardgamegeek.com, being run by almost deified admins, does a regular April 1st prank it would seem. Last year it was a news item link on the front page mentioning how (your username here) is being announced as a new admin or moderator. Click on the link and it shows that old video of the Russian guy singing the Trololol song. At least it wasn't that stupid Rick Roll. That said, it was at least a clever set up. Being aware of the date and that I would never be announced as a site admin without previous contact, I knew before clicking on the link that it was a "joke". It was met with all kinds of yes man affirmations from the sheeple. Mildly amusing, but at least it didn't get in the way of using the site. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people didn't even see it.

This year they decided to up the ante. Now when you go to the site, instead of the familiar, but still craptacular UI, you get some moronic Google knock-off using the defunct Geekdo name. When I landed there I was annoyed that I had to wade through the regular April 1st moronics. When I saw that there was no hidden "click here to go to the BGG home page" button, I was really annoyed. I have to play along with this unfunny joke just to get to basic site functionality. Apart from some "Easter eggs" in the faux-search page, it just spits out a series of 100% Monopoly game results. There is a "click here to go to the BGG home page" kind of thing, or you can actually go to the Monopoly page and then to the home from there, but it is a bunch of time wasting steps with no payoff. A joke is not a nuisance, no matter what MTV is trying to social engineer into our consciousness with crap like Jackass. Now with a site that is more like a blog, this kind of thing might work, but a resource site that people use to look up information shouldn't do this kind of thing. Imagine going to wikipedia and getting some crappy counterfeit google search page that will almost always give you a series of hits that are all a bunch of superfluous Britney Spears entries. I want to get a summary of the Van Halen lead singer soap opera, and I have to look wade through a joke to do it? I don't think they really thought this through. And leave it to the sheeple to ensure they don't learn their lesson.

So please, please, don't do stupid April 1st "jokes", and please don't validate the bone heads that insist on the tradition.